Saturday, November 11, 2006

I saw this video the vote clip on Daily Kos. And I ask you, if you are white and middle class is this what your voting experience was like? I know for a fact that my parents (who live in an up-scale white suburb of Columbus) have never ever waited for more a few minutes to vote. Is it any wonder that African-American turn out is low?

The Democratic party needs to pass a federal law requiring equal access to voting equipment based on local population and then enforce that law. It is obscene that we let local Republican authorities so transparently depress turnout for their own cynical gain.

Thanks, RbR, for posting that video. It was stunning to see people waiting for an hour or two to vote, and then being hassled because of bureaucratic mixups in IDs... you are so right: there needs to be a federal law that requires equal access to working voting machines for all Americans. The Republican HAVA is a total joke.

Actually, we had a little line at my precinct because voting machines ran out of paper, etc. So I had some time to talk to voters who were originally from Virginia. They were white, from Arlington. they told me that a 2 hour wait in line to vote was normal for them. They don't have Absentee systems. A lot of states don't. We in California have automatic, permanent absentee as well as early voting. Without those things, our lines would be a lot longer than they are.

Something really has to be done, however. It has to be done nation wide. Allowing so much as the perception that you don't want someone to vote to grow does serious damage do our democracy. Make voting day a holiday. Allow for absentee and early voting in all states. Voting should be a federally controlled thing. Allowing state control creates prima facie inequalities.

From wikipedia: "In Australia, the initial reason for instituting compulsory voting was due to the immense losses suffered during World War I. Since 60,000 Australians had died in World War I, it was argued that Australians had a duty to use those freedoms so dearly bought."

Maybe that is one benefit of having compulsory voting: if you are going to fine people for not voting, you have to be organised in the first place.

I think Wombat o'Love misunderstands the source of these problems. They aren't due to a lack of organization. It's even debatable whether they are due to a lack of concern by voters. It is increasingly clear that a large part of the reason for lower turnout in the US is that one of the political parties (the Republican party) has a vested interest in depressing turnout in certain communities. In states in which they are in control, they preserve antiquated voting procedures that have long since been overwhelmed.

In Virginia, keeping people around Arlington from voting is crucial to preserving conservative power in that state. Throughout the country, voting problems and long lines disproportionately hit urban areas.

I totally agree that absentee and early voting are great. I voted absentee myself. But I doubt absentee ballots would be used much by poor, urban voters. That said, at least allowing absentee voting in would free up resources from the areas where people DO take advantage of it.

Mandatory voter turnout is a non-starter in the USA. It runs counter to our tradition of abhorring government compulsion. It also devalues the act of voting, which many do out of pride, into little more than renewing one's driver's license. There are also groups of Americans who, for religious or other reasons, refuse to vote. At times, this has included Quakers, Amish, and Mennonites.

RBR is on the mark here. Because we have so many local elections, and because elections have been organized at local levels since time immemorial, there is no national/federal electoral system, and no national/federal funding. The patchwork that results in federal contests is becoming an embarassment.

Remember that voting for a multitude of offices has its roots in colonial times, and the 1787 constitution was designed to allow selection of federal offices without creation of a new federal bureaucratic apparatus. For example, the requirements for voting are not uniform, but reads "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature ." Today, there are rules requiring states to allow 18 year olds, women, and non-white property owners to vote, but if a state permitted 16 year olds to vote in state legislative elections, it would have to let them vote in federal elections as well, even if no other state did so.

Indeed, the only real federal rule on voting in 1787 was this: "The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States." But this allows states to continue their practice of running their own elections.

I may be wrong here, but I don't think Wombat was suggesting that compulsory voting would be accepted in the U.S.--and I think his note about "organisation" was meant to be interpreted more broadly than merely coordination to mean, "doing it the right way."

Lost in the succeeding comments was wht I believe was Wombat's point--an interesting one--that the American attitude toward voting may (regardless of its other benefits) be an obstacle toward fixing these problems. We see it as a privilege that people should be grateful for, and too many people are willing see long lines at polling places as being, "just the way it is." Too many people feel that thosew who complain are whiners. If they have so little pride in their right to vote that they can't spare an hour or so, then let them stay at home... after all, voting's not an entitlement. (OK, I think it IS an entitelment--I'm just voicing a sentiment I hear.)

If we had a different attitude--for example, that voting was a fundamental right--then we might all see lapses like what was shown in this vote as abhorrent. The Australian attitude--that it is a mandatory duty--is another option...unlikely to be good for the U.S., but an interesting consideration. The key is: if the public viewed voting differently, they might not tolerate these abuses anymore than we would tolerate being overcharged three cents at the grocery store.

I understood Wombat's point and think it was an interesting one. I think, as others here have said, that Americans have a complex attitude toward voting. It is true that some see it as a privilege, especially those who have earned it only of late, such as African Americans, many whose parents and grandparents fought hard for their civil rights and their voting rights. And thus, they are proud of their right to vote because it was denied them. Exercising this right is a sign of progress, of social mobility.

Others, such as my White American self, see it as a civic duty that wasn’t really ever denied to me. I was taught that there were certain duties you owed your nation as a full participant, among them voting, paying your fair share of tax, doing your best to remain law abiding, and serving jury duty. This is partially why I serve as a poll worker. And many people who came out on election day made a point of coming to the table and thanking all of us for being there to work. In fact, those where their very words.

Then there those who are so apathetic that they could care less. And the system gives them plenty of reasons to rationalize their apathy. And the problem here is that it is an attitude not just about voting, but about participation in society as a whole. Being part of a democracy isn't just 5 minutes in a voting booth. It is about really thinking about issues and trying to make choices based not on what is good for me alone but for society as a whole. When you see it like that, and I think few people do, then it is a huge responsibility. So I don't think there is a monolithic attitude toward voting.

Just two things in closing: 1) absentee ballots can be dropped of at any polling place on election day if they aren't in the mail on time, at least here in California anyway. And many people choose to use that option. So even if you can't afford the stamp, and you like turning up at a polling place, you can drop your completed absentee ballot in the box just like the good old days- no lines, no machines. So I am not sure I buy the argument that urban voters would be less likely to use absentee if it were made available to them. In Oregon, they only have mail in voting. It doesn’t protect again fraud any better than computers, but it does increase participation.

2) I think we forget that the Founding Fathers, being the white aristos that they were less interested in civic participation than in getting approval for a set of ordained candidates. This is what the Electoral College is all about. Remember that they limited voting to white, male property owners. The right to vote wasn't about mass participation in electing leaders so much as about limited participation in choosing between a set of candidates. This deficiency what the progressive movement in states like California sought to address when they introduced the proposition process, where citizens could write legislation and then have it voted on by the larger society. It has failed, but it was an attempt to increase democracy.

Voting is about civic engagement. this was a really interesting discussion. It isn't just about voting. It is about complete participation. If you are interested in delving a bit more into the subject, I recommend it.

The reason I don't think poor and urban voters will use absentee votes is because it requires planning ahead and paying attention far in advance of the actual election. Many people don't pay attention like that.

It might be interesting though to see how that attention span would change once people got used to the idea of having a month or so to vote.

I understand that the Australian PM 1915-1923 was Labor, the first Labor PM to make it more than a few months in office. Given that high turnout is said to benefit the left, in general -- because marginalized groups (poor and minorities) tend to vote less -- it stands to reason that Australia's compulsory voting was a move to ensure Labor dominance in elections. If there really were a sense of duty about voting, I would think there would be no pressure to make it mandatory. We make things mandatory when we think people won't do them without compulsion.

LTG raises an excellent point. Making something mandatory is typically done to overcome some collective action problem. Voting is a good example of such a problem.

I'm especially intrested to see that it was Labor that put it through. This came at a time when labor movements around the democratic world (Europe especially) were adopting various coercive mechanisms and selective benefits to boost their support.

Some examples of similar moves: The "Ghent System" in which unemployment benefits were made conditional on membership in a union affiliated with the national union confederation. Swedish union members are automatically registered as members of the Social Democratic party.

Why does Australia have compulsory voting when such a notion would be a "non-starter" in the U.S.? In his earlier post, LTG nicely describes several aspects of the American attitude toward voting that are at work here. For example, LTG notes that Americans feel that making the vote compulsory would "devalue" voting. And we hate compulsory things.

Apparently, Australians feel differently. This is precisely the sort of difference in attitude between the societies that I was alluding to. I have no doubt that the actual change to compulsory voting after World War I was--as LTG describes--also the result of a more cynical political maneuver by one of the major parties. That's almost a given in politics, isn't it? But surely the difference in attitude must play a role, or else the Democrats would have done it here too.

LTG doubts Wombat's description of the Australian attitude toward voting: LTG says that if the Australians "really" saw voting as a duty, there would be no need to make it compulsory. I understand his point, but I suspect LTG's remark may be more indicative of American attitudes than anything else. Most Americans hate making things compulsory and feel it should be our right to opt out of almost anything... but other societies believe important things should be compulsory and feel it is right and proper to punish someone for failing to do their duty.

I am in the early stages of forming a new activist national Eagle Scout organization. If you or anyone you know personally or through your work is an adult Eagle Scout and would be interested in the outline contained on this sample webpage, please refer them to me (or me to them). http://home.earthlink.net/~greenfieldforsenate/id12.html

It is my intention to integrate this group with others that are reclaiming patriotism and restoring a sense of honor to the American character, such as Veterans for Peace, Gold Star Mothers, Iraq Vets Against the War, and West Point Graduates Against The War. Due to the special resonance "Eagle Scout" has in the American mind, I think it can have a meaningful impact and get a few doors opened.

I am not ready to have this hit the press. I'd like to spend some time building a membership base, properly designing a website, and taking care of the legal paperwork. If you or anyone you know are interested, contact me at bicyclesax@earthlink.net.Thanks,

Steve GreenfieldNew Paltz, NY

Eagle Scout (1975), Order of the Arrow, and former Senior Patrol Leader and Scout of the Year, Troop 139, Howard Beach, Queens, New York City

RBR is wrong to say that I misunderstood the problems. I was trying to allude to that fact that -- regardless of whether you think mandatory voting is appropriate or not -- because mandatory voting has been instituted at a national level in Australia, national support was required to ensure the system worked. Hence we ended up with what has become the Australian Electoral Commission and a general expectation of continuity in voting. Every ballot is paper and printed in the same style, and every booth is set up the same. In fact you simply have to walk into any Electoral Office in the country at the time of an election and get your local voting form.

The system is not perfect of course and there is electoral role fraud. We don't have a "mandatory" numbering of citizens like you guys (SSNs), speaking of compulsion :-). And you can opt out of voting for valid reasons. It may have been instituted by Labor and the conservatives may want to get rid of it, but it has not resulted in more Labor governments than conservative.

I think Dr S. covers the other points rather well. Here's a question for you: should voting be done simply as a sense of duty and a test of will it almost seems from what LTG was saying? Or should be a simple thing you do when picking up the paper on a Saturday morning along with everyone else, as a common place thing to do?

"Maybe that is one benefit of having compulsory voting: if you are going to fine people for not voting, you have to be organised in the first place."

To which I responded that the problem is not one of organization. To say that it is an organization problem reflects a misunderstanding. Our voting system is very organized at the local level. The problem is that one of the parties is corrupt.

Any voting system, regardless of how it is organized, can be corrupted. Organization (or lack thereof) of the voting is not the cause.

Wombat, as you can guess, the "mandatory numbering" of Americans was an accidental byproduct of the social security program. So much of our political life (e.g., political parties, the filibuster, the vice presidency) was an unintended consequence. I am not sure a national ID # would have developed otherwise, but I cannot prove it one way or another. I am surprised (and delighted) that Australia does not have any equivalent. What does the Australian government do to differentiate between John Smiths? Fingerprints?